4.5 Article

Quantitative insights into the dislocation source behavior of twin boundaries suggest a new dislocation source mechanism

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS RESEARCH
Volume 36, Issue 10, Pages 2037-2046

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1557/s43578-021-00253-y

Keywords

Pop-in statistics; Twin boundary; Frank partial dislocation; Dislocation dissociation; Dislocation nucleation

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. US Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA0003857]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanoindentation statistics are used to determine stress required for dislocation activation in twin boundaries; Activation stress in TBs is smaller than in single crystals, possibly due to Frank partial dislocations splitting into Shockley partials; Proposed mechanism may help explain superior properties of nanotwinned metals and detwinning process.
Pop-in statistics from nanoindentation with spherical indenters are used to determine the stress required to activate dislocation sources in twin boundaries (TBs) in copper and its alloys. The TB source activation stress is smaller than that needed for bulk single crystals, irrespective of the indenter size, dislocation density and stacking fault energy. Because an array of pre-existing Frank partial dislocations is present at a TB, we propose that dislocation emission from the TB occurs by the Frank partials splitting into Shockley partials moving along the TB plane and perfect lattice dislocations, both of which are mobile. The proposed mechanism is supported by recent high resolution transmission electron microscopy images in deformed nanotwinned (NT) metals and may help to explain some of the superior properties of nanotwinned metals (e.g. high strength and good ductility), as well as the process of detwinning by the collective formation and motion of Shockley partial dislocations along TBs. Graphic abstract

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available